[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch]
Here you go.
The winning percentages for all the teams since 1945.
Notice the Vikings are 5th. The Bucs (who were left off the Zamboniracer list) are next-to-last beating only the expansion Texans.
[/QUOTE]
To be accurate, the Bucs weren’t on my list for the simple reason that they met my non-stinky criteria by having won a league championship since the merger during the 2002-03 season, whatever SB Roman number that happens to be.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
To be accurate, the Bucs weren’t on my list for the simple reason that they met my non-stinky criteria by having won a league championship since the merger during the 2002-03 season, whatever SB Roman number that happens to be.
[/QUOTE]
Which, I suppose, means that you might want to re-think your “non-stinky” criterion of “post-1970 Super Bowl win”. :eek:
[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch]
Here you go.
The winning percentages for all the teams since 1945.
[/QUOTE]
1945? That means no love for the Oorang Indians 
I don’t think the Rooneys will move the team from Pittsburgh, at least not for a generation or two. They make their pile anyway, their fan base extends far beyond Pennsylvania, and they have shown themselves to be far more committed to both the stability of the team and the long term success of the league in general than chasing any short term gain.
I don’t support every move they make, but they rank right up there as probably one of the top four or so best owners in all of professional sports, IMHO.
It’s interesting, too, to note that they seek stability not only in their head coaching job, but also in certain coaching positions and field positions. Dick Hoak just retired from the team - he was a running back for 10 years and then spent 34 years working as an offensive backfield and running backs coach. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone else in the whole league working 45 years for the same team.
The emphasis on scouting and building up the team through draft picks hasn’t changed since the Chuck Noll era, in contrast to teams like the Redskins who sell their seed corn - trading away draft picks will-nilly to chase the latest hot prospect.
The Steelers too have built up their center as a team leader akin to the quarterback, and since 1964 only five guys have held the starting job. That’s a statistic far more remarkable than three head coaches since 1969.
I don’t think you can deny that the Rooneys run things differently than many owners - and I think lots of people wish their teams were run in similar fashion. I certainly wish the Pirates were run with more stability and sense.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Which, I suppose, means that you might want to re-think your “non-stinky” criterion of “post-1970 Super Bowl win”. :eek:
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t mean anything of the sort. Any team that hasn’t won the league championship since 1970 stinks. IMHO. YMMV. The Bucs have been terrible but at least they won once.
The merger is the best basis for analysis to me, because it depends on the “all things being equal” test. 1970 is the first year the teams played a common regular schedule, thus making all things equal. Contrary to Ellis’ opinion, this criteria was not intended to personally screw the Jets.
Apologies to the Oorang Indians and the Canton Bulldogs.
With apologies, my lunch date cut off my previous post.
Prior to 1970 the NFL and AFL had very different playoff arrangements. The NFL was a 16 team league with 4 divisions of 4 teams each, with the 4 division champs making the playoffs. Twenty five percent of the league made the playoffs. In the AFL in both '68 and '69, the 10 team had had 4 teams, or 40% of the league, reach the playoffs, the two division champs plus the second place team in each 5 team division. Thus, there was hardly an equal chance of an NFL team and an AFL team making the playoffs and winning the Super Bowl.
With the merger in 1970, the league went to 6 divisions in two conferences, with 4 teams in each 13 team conference making the playoffs, the 3 division winners plus one wild card. The playoffs and league have expanded and realigned since then, obviously.
Not to be too argumentative (and this is sports so who really cares anyway), but the championships since 1970 standard is pretty corny. By that measure most of the NHL and the NBA stinks as 16 of the 30 teams in both leagues have no championships since 1970. England sucks at soccer because their last world cup was in 1966 and The Netherlands, Spain and Portugal all extra-suck as they have never won it all.
I think it’s more a question of perennially moribund franchises such as the AZ Cardinals and The Buccaneers (until fairly recently). How bad were the Bucs? Well, despite their recent better play the team is still 109 games below .500. They would need to 16-0 for the next six years and start out 10-0 the next year to get to break-even as a franchise. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays would be another good example.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
It doesn’t mean anything of the sort. Any team that hasn’t won the league championship since 1970 stinks. IMHO. YMMV. The Bucs have been terrible but at least they won once.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let’s follow this line of reasoning:
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Worst win/loss percentage since 1945, over the course now of thirty years of play (so it isn’t a statistical fluke) (discounting the recent Houston Texans, who haven’t played enough years to count). Winners of one Super Bowl, and playoff contenders a couple of times before that. Not sucky.
Kansas City Chiefs: Win/loss percentage of .532, for 8th place in the league. No Super Bowls since the merger, but often in the playoffs. Sucky.
When your criteria select OUT the teams that should be in, and select IN the teams that should be out, that’s a poor set of criteria. :smack: 
oh, and by the way, the Jets suck, period. One Super Bowl does not a good team make.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I don’t think the Rooneys will move the team from Pittsburgh, at least not for a generation or two. They make their pile anyway, their fan base extends far beyond Pennsylvania, and they have shown themselves to be far more committed to both the stability of the team and the long term success of the league in general than chasing any short term gain.
I don’t support every move they make, but they rank right up there as probably one of the top four or so best owners in all of professional sports, IMHO.
It’s interesting, too, to note that they seek stability not only in their head coaching job, but also in certain coaching positions and field positions. Dick Hoak just retired from the team - he was a running back for 10 years and then spent 34 years working as an offensive backfield and running backs coach. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone else in the whole league working 45 years for the same team.
The emphasis on scouting and building up the team through draft picks hasn’t changed since the Chuck Noll era, in contrast to teams like the Redskins who sell their seed corn - trading away draft picks will-nilly to chase the latest hot prospect.
The Steelers too have built up their center as a team leader akin to the quarterback, and since 1964 only five guys have held the starting job. That’s a statistic far more remarkable than three head coaches since 1969.
I don’t think you can deny that the Rooneys run things differently than many owners - and I think lots of people wish their teams were run in similar fashion. I certainly wish the Pirates were run with more stability and sense.
[/QUOTE]
Everything you say is true and if Art Rooney Sr. had lived forever I would go out on a limb and say that the Steelers would never leave. But the era of great sportsmen is long gone. We are now living in the era of big business and while Dan Rooney was an excellent executive and the current president seems to be doing everything right I have no confidence that they see Pittsburgh in the same light as the founder. They obviously would need to be provoked more than say, Jack Kent Cooke, but when the current stadium is in massive need of repair and the Pittsburgh economy is still in the crapper and the fans have tired of a decade or so of mediocre football, they will be on their way to Sacramento, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City or basically to whatever area makes them the best offer. Remember the Green Bay Packers, the quintessential NFL dynasty had to be rescued by the citizens of Green Bay.
Also, while there is no doubt that the Steelers march to the beat of a different drummer, they have had a lot of luck, particularly with coaches and centers. I don’t think it is entirely the “vision thing.”
[QUOTE=denquixote]
Also, while there is no doubt that the Steelers march to the beat of a different drummer, they have had a lot of luck, particularly with coaches and centers. I don’t think it is entirely the “vision thing.”
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no doubt. Still, there are a few things working in the Steelers’ favor here.
First of all, their owners realize that it is impossible for an owner of an NFL team not to make money, and lots of it. In large part this is because of the efforts of Dan Rooney, who has done more than any other NFL owner to bring stability, success, and growth to the whole league and not just his team.
Second, football is just about all that the Rooneys do. This isn’t a sideline for them.
Third, their fanbase is rabid, and extends far beyond Pittsburgh itself.
These things matter, and are why the Steelers will stay put for a while. I make no predictions for the Pirates or Penguins, but the Steelers will stay put.